5 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1926–1984 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amberg v. . Kinley
green
2 sentences1983Likewise, as we noted in Amberg v Kinley ( 214 NY 531, 535-536 ): “Whether a statute gives a cause of action to a person injured by its violation, or whether it is intended as a general police regulation, and the violation made punishable solely as a public offense ‘must to a great extent depend on the purview of the legislature in the particular statute and the language which they have there employed.’ (Atkinson v New Castle & Gateshead W.W. 1926In Amberg v. Kinley ( 214 N. Y. 531 ) where this subject was discussed and the authorities reviewed it was said: “ Whether a statute gives a cause of action to a person injured by its violation, or whether it is intended as a general police regulation, and the violation made punishable solely as a public offense must to a great extent depend on the purview of the Legislature in the particular statute and the language which they have there employed,” and in that case it *467 was held that failure to observe a statute relating to fire escapes gave a cause of action to one injured by such failure | 3 | 1926–1983 |
Muller v. . McKesson
green
1 sentence1984Nor is mere negligence on the part of the person injured a defense to such an action (see Muller v McKesson, supra, p 202 ; Restatement, Torts 2d, § 515). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Haimes v. New York Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1983Co., 46 NY2d 132 ; see, also, Koenig v Patrick Constr. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rigsby
green
1 sentence1926Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33 .) In Brown v. Shyne ( 242 N. Y. 176, 180 ) the rule is thus stated: “ For injury caused by neglect of duty imposed by the penal law there is civil remedy; but of course the injury must follow from the neglect.” “ Whether a statute gives a cause of action to a person injured by its violation, or whether it is intended as a general police regulation, and the violation made punishable solely as a public offense, £ must to a great extent depend on the purview of the Legislature in the particular statute and the language which they have there employed.’ ” (Amberg v. Kin | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Brown v. Shyne
green
1 sentence1926Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33 .) In Brown v. Shyne ( 242 N. Y. 176, 180 ) the rule is thus stated: “ For injury caused by neglect of duty imposed by the penal law there is civil remedy; but of course the injury must follow from the neglect.” “ Whether a statute gives a cause of action to a person injured by its violation, or whether it is intended as a general police regulation, and the violation made punishable solely as a public offense, £ must to a great extent depend on the purview of the Legislature in the particular statute and the language which they have there employed.’ ” (Amberg v. Kin | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.